[Bp_ipv6] Amendment requests: BP_IPv6 doc
miwa at apnic.net
Mon Nov 2 19:17:36 EST 2015
Thanks for your guidance. I provided two comments at P65 and P276.
It would be great if the final doc includes another input from an ISP in Japan.
From: Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>>
Date: Tuesday, 3 November 2015 1:08 am
To: Miwa Fujii <miwa at apnic.net<mailto:miwa at apnic.net>>
Cc: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle at drmv.be<mailto:wdegezelle at drmv.be>>, IGF BPFs <bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>>, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp>>
Subject: Re: Amendment requests: BP_IPv6 doc
Hi Miwa, all,
Thank you for your email.
Please note that the draft is on the IGF platform, available for comment, here http://review.intgovforum.org/?p=3987.
The reference to KDDI was removed.
We were not able to accommodate all submitted content in the first draft, I'm sorry. However, you are very welcome to suggest inserting anonymous example A via the comment function, where you think it is relevant, given the flow of the paper.
susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Miwa Fujii <miwa at apnic.net<mailto:miwa at apnic.net>> wrote:
Thanks for the link of the final draft:
Could you please make following two amendments in regards with input from Japan?
1. Page 2, ToC page, it still said “A case study: KDDI Japan”. Pls remove KDDI. They prefer to keep anonymous status.
2. Input from organisation A (Japan) is missing. Could you please add it their input to the doc?
As for your convenience, I attached the word file once more (I’ve sent this file to this list on last sat, 31/10/2015). I provided input from two organisations in Japan.
It would be great if you could send me the link to the final doc. I would like to send the link to orgs who provided input.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bp_ipv6